Why Are People Against Personal Accountabilty For Individuals Who Behave Badly?
- Thread starter KissingSunlight
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Why'd the police shoot them then? Police aren't the arbiters of guilt, the courts are. Police should stop shooting people.KissingSunlight said:
Anyway, you really need to add some non-hypothetical examples (links to news I mean) to be clear on the sort of behaviour you're talking about - saying 'I keep seeing this kind of behaviour' doesn't help us understand if you don't provide examples.
Are you seriously asking "Why do police use lethal force to defend themselves?" Do you honestly believe the police should let criminals kill them, because they are not "the arbiters of guilt, the courts are"?Baffle2 said:
I didn't start. I was just finishing it. Baffle2 was advocating that the police should never use lethal force to defend themselves. Police don't default to deadly force in all situations. Stop exaggerating. Why are you so pro-criminal?undeadsuitor said:
General statements don't help.KissingSunlight said:
Do you have a story of when a criminal threatened a police officer with lethal force and the cop retaliated with lethal force in self defense and people defended the actions of the criminal over the cop?
Do you honestly believe that all police killings are legitimate?KissingSunlight said:
Edit: also, why'd you quote me in that weird way? Clearly the courts are the arbiters of guilt, that's their function.
Provide examples of the behaviour you're complaining about or the conversation really can't go anywhere - we don't even know what kind of behaviour you're complaining about!
Edit 2: Sorry, I just had to quote this.
#actionheroKissingSunlight said:
He was a doctor who needed to see patients at a hospital in the morning. Did his reaction get him what he wanted? No. But I don't blame him for reacting like that towards the airline's indifference when the problem was all their fault.KissingSunlight said:
I think we all deserve a bit more credit here. I'm pretty certain no one on this thread is trying to insinuate that a certain outlook should be applied to every situation. Saying police have to defend themselves isn't the same as saying they should always shoot first, and ask questions later.
Meanwhile, saying that police should avoid lethal force whenever possible, isn't the same as saying that police should only be allowed to use "Cease and desist" orders when dealing with legit deranged killers.
Reading these posts, it sounds like we're all agreeing that an extreme one-size-fits-all approach to the situation is bad, and yet somehow we're simultaneously arguing about it, most likely because we can't agree on which extremism is more common. However, do any of us actually know which one is more common? We certainly won't know just by counting the number of times we've seen an extreme view on the internet.
Meanwhile, saying that police should avoid lethal force whenever possible, isn't the same as saying that police should only be allowed to use "Cease and desist" orders when dealing with legit deranged killers.
Reading these posts, it sounds like we're all agreeing that an extreme one-size-fits-all approach to the situation is bad, and yet somehow we're simultaneously arguing about it, most likely because we can't agree on which extremism is more common. However, do any of us actually know which one is more common? We certainly won't know just by counting the number of times we've seen an extreme view on the internet.
To put it bluntly, when you're being victimized, you're allowed a certain amount of leeway to respond. In this case, and cases like it, I do not particularly believe that an individual really owes much obedience to abused power. United, entirely capable of swallowing the situation by spending a few bucks or even just picking another passenger, instead broke their own contract, and then invoked air safety powers that are supposed to apply to things like terrorism over their own broken contract, applying force and violence as a solution to their own shortcomings.KissingSunlight said:
Personally, I find the invocation of Captain's authority to be particularly abhorrent in this case. That's a nearly sacred responsibility, and not a copout to cover up doing whatever's convenient for your carrier.
Why do you, personally, defend a powerful corporation and other authority figures that act obnoxious, rude, and/or criminal? And instead blame their victims for not rolling over fast enough?
Deadly force? Maybe not. Excessive force? All too common.KissingSunlight said:
I mean, there's a video floating around of a guy getting tackled and beaten because he was jaywalking. He got arrested for resisting arrest, but nothing substantial. And in trying to find the event I heard about recently, I find out that this is hardly the first time something like that's happened.
If it makes me "pro-criminal" to point that out, then I guess I'm pro-criminal. Because Jesus Christ, that's unnecessary.
i believe it has something to do with the fact you lumped being offensive with breaking the law.KissingSunlight said:
until someone has broken the law, the only thing they have to account for is that which affects their own personal interactions and that is done at their own whim, or impulse.
In other words unless it is indeed criminal, there is no real need for someone to account for their actions unless the wish to do so.
and in cases of criminality, convicted mind you there can be leniency.
Perhaps i, having lived with folks who are not particularly civil have brooked a sense of mercy towards bullish and people of poor temperament. but also my belief that it isn't rightly my place to force them to do see change their ways.
I'd be no better, I'd be a crooked man
what defines personal accountability, as far as i understand the only legal thing you can do to a dick is be a dick back.
You have no more RIGHT to infringe on a persons dignity as a human being until something criminal has been done.
I gets you, see if people are doing something actually criminal then do something otherwise it doesn't fucking matter.
that isn't really personal accountability, that's legal matters there son.
I can't speak for those people.
I'm of the opinion that unless criminal actions can be reasonably sympathetic then there really isn't a reason to hold on to it.
This thinking is the root of the modern justice system (and arguably always has been). Once someone has gotten the label "criminal" or "bad guy," it's on them to disprove it. They are handicapped as well since any evidence put forth will be countered by something else they've done, ignoring context.KissingSunlight said:
Similarly, you having been the subject of police harassment does not immediately validate your opinion on all cases any more than it immediately validates the harshest. Others may have had it worse. Others may not be forgiving in your case for good reason.
Now all that aside, I do find myself coming to quick conclusions myself only to learn something else after I look into it or it comes to me through happenstance. I have trained myself to keep my mouth shut when it comes to news stories. I don't know what happened. I don't know the circumstances. Videos do not tell the whole story and any filmmaker can tell you that even accidental perspective can make the audience form a particular opinion.
Are people stupid sometimes? Yes. It's human to be stupid sometimes. Do people experience consequences more severe than they should? Yes. Can I tell from a news report what the case is? No.
TT: "All this trouble could've been avoided if Rosa Parks had just gone to the back of the bus like she was told."
Because, while most of us would've certainly moved when we were voluntold, there is a certain resonance to his whole experience that we (meaning I) find compelling. No, you do not have the legal right to refuse to get off a plane, no you even more certainly do not have the legal right to refuse a cop when he says "move". At the same time though, the bigger question is about the little guy here. (and please do not mention the fact that he's some rich doctor or that crap from his past, it could've been anybody)KissingSunlight said:
He bought a ticket, he spent time and money getting there, he had his luggage packed, checked, went through that incredibly stupid security process, was allowed to board. The man followed all "the rules" up to that point and he probably felt that he was a little bit entitled to be able to stay on the plane.
*EDIT*
Based on the title, I actually thought this thread was going to be about Jontron and Pewdiepie before I clicked.
My favourite is the unarmed black guy who was lying flat on his back with his arms in the air. Next to him was sitting an autistic teenager holding a toy truck. The guy on the ground was shouting, "It's not a gun, he just has a toy truck" at the top of his voice.undeadsuitor said:
Police still fired on them, wounding the guy on the ground. Didn't even hit the "right" person.
Law and order!